Schwab MCP

get_transactions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve brokerage account transaction history—trades, dividends, interest, deposits, withdrawals, and fees—with optional filters by date range, type, symbol, or account.

Instructions

Account history: trades, dividends, interest, deposits/withdrawals and fees, newest first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Look back this many days (max 365).
`types`	No	Transaction types, e.g. ["TRADE", "DIVIDEND_OR_INTEREST"]. Omit for all.
`symbol`	No	Only transactions involving this symbol.
`account`	No	Account label/last digits/nickname. Omit for all.
`max_results`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the 'newest first' ordering, but says nothing about pagination, truncation, or the 100-default/1000-max result cap that affects behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its contents are stated immediately and nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists, return format need not be explained, and the description covers the resource scope plus ordering. It falls short only on the sibling boundary with get_orders and the result-cap/pagination behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents days, types, symbol and account; the description only loosely echoes the type categories. Since structured data does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate, with max_results left undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource (account transaction history) and enumerates the included categories (trades, dividends, interest, deposits/withdrawals, fees), so an agent knows what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_orders, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The overlap with get_orders (which also returns trade activity) is left entirely to inference, so the agent has no stated rule for choosing this tool over that one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server